But Go has not existed for 42 years. Fitting any of those models on Go is exactly what should be avoided unless one of those models magically was a perfect fit for Go which came out just a few years ago.
Magically? It would take magic for one of these models to NOT be a perfect fit for Go.
The fact that Go "has not existed for 42 years" is irrelevant -- almost all of its characteristics have been present for 3 to 5 decades, even altogether in the same language(s).
"..Updated 2015-09-25: So, about six years later, people are still reading this. I'm not sure how to feel about this; Looking at it now, it's incoherent, badly argued, and a lot of the details are simply wrong. But 1000 hits a month indicate that people still get value out of it."
But this article link is still quite handy for random proof of Go badness.
Especially since he adds "Don't get me wrong; I still think that Go is a terrible language. I now work for a company that does a lot of it, and every time I touch it it depresses me a little more".
There is nothing special in Go's type system that hasn't been tried out in 42 years of generics CS research.